This is a platform to comment on local, state and national politics and political news. A special area of interest is the role of corporate media in politics as we move closer and closer to one huge corporation owning all of the media outlets in the country and stifling all independent and critical voices. It will also focus on the absurd 30-plus year Nixonesque political strategy of the “liberal media” lie.
This blog is on temporary hiatus because of my job and thin-skinned Republicans.

Jul 24, 2008

County GOP continues its thinly-disguised racist rants

The Livingston County Republican Party continues its letter-to-the-editor writing campaign with another thinly-disguised racist rant. The latest one published in the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus comes from Howell Township resident Bob Moriset.

The gist of the letter is that Sen. Barack Obama is unqualified. However, Mr. Moriset used the thinly-disguised use of his entire name, Barack Hussein Obama. This is a signal to other racists that you should not vote for Obama because he is a Muslim with a funny-sounding Muslim name. Now, he is not a Muslim, and if you need any proof of that, just watch the Hatey & Colmes show on Faux “News” where Hatey brings up his Christian minister with every question he asks. Frankly, it should not matter a lick what religion he is, but unfortunately it does.

To make sure the bigots out there know he is not only a Muslim, but black as well, we get this ridiculous sentence from Mr. Moriset. “His orchestrated background, conducted by his liberal guardians and a bureaucratic African father, will be noteworthy.”

If it wasn’t enough the sentence makes no sense, we get the remark that his father was African. Can someone tell me the significance of that statement, other than to point out Obama’s race? Obama’s mother and father separated when he was two years old and later divorced, and he saw his father only once before his death. He was raised by his mother in a single parent household, but this is common knowledge. With a 50 percent divorce rate in this country, he was far from alone.

The rest of the letter is an exercise in code words to the base and outright lies.

Mr. Moriset writes that Obama “may qualify as the most articulate ultraliberal decoy ever to get a U.S. presidential nomination.” First, Obama is a moderate Democrat, much like President Bill Clinton, but he certainly cannot be described as “ultraliberal.” I only wish that were the case. I have no idea what the “decoy” part means. A decoy for what?

He next claims, “His arrival on the scene can only be attributed to a once great, now brain-dead, Democratic Party ruled by a radical bunch determined to wreck the country as we have known it.” I’m not sure if Mr. Mr. Moriset is aware of the shambles the Grand Oil Party really is. As for wrecking the country, he might want to take a look around at events in the country and the shape of the economy after eight years of Bush. Certain events look all too familiar to people who lived through the Great Depression.

Mr. Moriset then claims, “He gained the nomination almost by default over a supremely unqualified opponent.” Is this the same opponent, Hilary Clinton, that right-wingers were falling over each other to support and endorse because they did not have enough dirt on Obama? The answer is yes, by the way.

But he saves the best for last, “This young man we know as Barack Hussein Obama has spent his entire sheltered life learning to hate the traditional values most Americans hold very dear and don't cotton to giving them up easily. President George W. Bush hasn't been perfect; few presidents are. But he is true to American ideals. So is John McCain.”

This is a man raised in a single parent household where money was often tight, to overcome racial prejudice and graduate with honors from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He did it on his own, and he was no legacy. His grandfather and father were not admirals, nor was his grandfather a U.S. Senator or his father a president. What tradition values is it that he hates? Racial prejudice? Count me among those that hate that traditional value.

As for his unqualified and inexperienced take. They also said that about the greatest Republican president ever, Abraham Lincoln.

27 comments:

Brett
said...

I looked at the article mentioned by the writer of this blog. It was written by someone named Bob Moriset from Howell.

The writer of this blog says that it's a letter writing campaign by the Livingston County Republican Party. I don't know Bob Mariset, nor do I know much about Livingston County Republican Party. I live in a different county to the west. I did look up the guy and the party and could not find any information on Mr. Moriset. He was not listed on the Livingston County Republican Website that I saw.

So my question would be, what proof does the writer of this blog offer to prove that this is from the Livingston County Republican Party?

Somehow, using Barack Hussein Obama's middle name has been called a racist use of his name by the extremist liberals. Looking back through history to see where this comes from, I couldn't find where it was determined to be racist. In my lifetime, there has been JFK for John Fitzgerald Kennedy, LBJ for Lyndon Baines Johnson. RFK for Robert Francis Kennedy (not a President, but a candidate for a short time).

As near as I can determine, the use of the initials like that was the beginning of a string that was started by President Eisenhower who had the slogan "I like Ike" which was his nickname.

Emphasis was not given much to Nixon's middle name, nor to Carters or Fords. Reagan's got some play, but not much more than his immediate predecessors.

President Bush the elder had some but it really didn't come up until his son ran for President. They are now separated by their numbers for the most part (41 and 43) and by their middle initials; George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

President Adams was more to distinguish himself from his father by using Quincy, but he was called Quincy as a boy rather than John.

Barack Hussein Obama is his name. Those that want to call it racist are trying to make something out of next to nothing.

As for Obama being a moderate Democrat, this is laughable at best. He has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. If he has earned anything at all in his short time in the Senate as the junior Senator from Illinois, he has definitely earned the liberal tag that accompanies him.

Regarding Obama's articulateness, I disagree with Mr. Moriset. Obama is not articulate. When he's reading from a teleprompter, he's very good. Maybe one of the best. He can read very very well.

However, when it comes to talking to him in interviews, or in the debates, he is not smooth. In fact, he stutters, stammers, hems and haws. He is very inarticulate. His stammering around off the cuff gives drug abusers hope that they too may be understood when speaking while under the influence.

Obama was given the nomination in one respect. Hillary Diane Clinton had more actual votes for her yet Obama claimed the nomination. I seem to remember a race where the Democrats complained about this very thing. You might remember the election of 2000.

Obama had a variety of circumstances, however the writer of this blog talks about him being raised by a single parent which he partly attributes to a fifty percent divorce rate in this country.

The divorce rate was not fifty percent in 1963 when Obama was 2 years old.

Second, Obama was with his mother only until the age of ten. Then he went to live with his grandparents where he stayed until after graduating high school.

The writer of this blog also claims that Obama had to overcome racial prejudice. Obama was not part of the civil rights movement. At the height of the movement, Obama wasn't even born. In the early sixties he was living in Hawaii, which is definitely not the hot bed of racism. It wasn't Mobile, Alabama. He wasn't even in the country when the civil rights laws were passed and by the time he did return to America it was 1971. His return to America was during the time of the Vietnam War and Roe v Wade. Not the civil rights movement.

Obama is an ultra liberal, he's not a good speaker, but he is an excellent reader, and he doesn't have any experience. Zip Zero Nada. His notable social contacts are racist preachers in Jeremiah Wright, and Flegler (spelling), and a man who bombed the Pentagon as a member of the Weatermen, a terrorist group of the sixties and seventies who said in the New York Times on September 11, 2001 that he wished he could bomb the Pentagon again.

He's married to a woman that said after Obama announced he was a candidate for President that she is now finally, for the first time in her life, proud to be an American.

There is absolutely no reason to vote for Obama unless you really like higher taxes, terrorists coming across our borders in droves and spending of taxpayer money going through the roof. Not to mention that Obama wants to have an amount equal to 1/7 of the GNP being paid for the poor around the world. This is in ADDITION to the spending we have now. That again translates into more spending which is higher taxes.

We have a choice between two liberals this election cycle. Barack Hussein Obama, the most liberal of the liberals in Congress and John Sydney McCain, the most liberal Republican in the Senate today with the possible exception of Senator John Hagel of Nebraska.

McCain is a sorry choice to have, but when compared to Obama, there really is no choice. The liberal Republican will not be ashamed to win the war and is not ashamed of America. Obama is the most liberal of any politician holding a seat in elected office, and is ashamed of the American flag and all that America stands for.

For thinking Americans, we do not need the troubles that will be brought on this country by the extreme liberal, Barack Hussein Obama. With the liberal McCain, we at least have a chance to survive the next four years until we can hopefully get a true conservative to take over for him.

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me see, some guy from Olivet doesn’t know the letter writer among a county of 170,000 people, so I have to be lying. Your zeal to attack me has again clouded your judgment.

For you to continue to use the name Barack Hussein Obama continues, even on second reference, then say it’s not trying to draw attention to it is disingenuous at best. Your examples are ridiculous. Why bother to use JFK or LBJ? You use that to shorten writing the name on second reference, so why not use Obama or BHB on second reference? I don’t see people using the name John Sydney McCain constantly.

You are wrong that he has the most liberal voting record. You are talking about one publication, the National Journal, that used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings. The fact that Obama was on the campaign trail and missed a third of those votes is significant. Grampy McSame missed so many votes he did not even get a rating. The fact is liberal views are held by most Americans. We have seen how many Americans have a better life because of liberal programs.

Obama is not articulate? Please? Next to Bush he looks like a genius, and he is far better than Grampy. Not a day goes by that Grampy does not makes a mistake, from not knowing who we are fighting or what country he is in. I can’t wait to see them together on the same stage. Obama’s lead will be even bigger.

Yes, I remember the vote in 2000. Gore not only had more popular votes, he had more Electoral votes. A presidential primary is far different than a general election, and if you knew anything about politics you would know that. How do you count the number of voters for a caucus state? By the way, Hillary Clinton’s middle name is not Diana.

OK, the divorce rate was not 50 percent in 1963. Are you saying he lived a sheltered life? Get real.

Are you honestly saying Obama did not have to overcome racial prejudice? I got news for you, it continues to go on today, and you’re proof of that.

Sorry, Obama is not an “ultraliberal,” but if you want to keep using this lie you go ahead. He could be called a lot worse, like a conservative.

I would consider a community organizer, a civil rights attorney, a law professor, a state legislator and a U.S. Senator plenty of experience, and again, he has more experience than Abraham Lincoln did.

He does not share Jeremiah Wright’s views, besides, how can he have a Christian minister if he’s a Muslim? Wright’s a racist for saying the same things as Pat Buchanan? As for Bill Ayers, he met him. Is he responsible for ever person he meets? What was he convicted of anyway? You know, of course, you misquoted Michele Obama, but that won’t stop you. If this is all you have on Obama, no wonder you’re playing up the false notion he’s a Muslim and black.

Your claim about raising taxes is false, as well as the rest of your rant. Check out fact check at http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

You can call Grampy McSame a lot of things, but liberal isn’t one of them. This BS about being ashamed of America and ashamed of the flat is ridiculous. Bush and his polices have disgraced this country by torturing people and ignoring the Constitution. Obama will restore pride to the country.

I accused you of lying because I don't know the Livingston County Republicans? INteresting. I can't find where I called you a liar anywhere on that post. I did ask you to prove that he was part of the Livingston County Republicans, which I noticed you failed to do.

Using his middle name is disengenuous? Please enlighten us as to what his real middle name is then?

You want to compare Obama's speech with Bush's speech? Why? I never claimed that Bush was an excellent speaker. He sounds like he's got marbles in his mouth all of the time, and yet he's not been beaten by the liberals.

Gore did not have more electoral votes. Sheesh. That was a dumb statement.

He doesn't share Wrights views, yet he attended a church that he disagreed with for 20 years? That would indicate poor judgement on his part.

He did more than meet with Bill Ayers. He served on a board with him, is his neighbor and claims him as a friend.

It's a false notion that he's black? I never said he was a muslim. I even disagree that he's black. If I remember right, he has a little more white in him than black and I have wondered why he claims to be black when he's just as much, if not more white. I've also questioned in my blog why his color even matters, yet you keep mentioning it.

So you say the global poverty tax is not something he's interested in eh? You might want to double and triple check that information.

Yes. Most individual reporters are liberals, probably because they are educated and enter the profession to change things. But they are professional and adhere to professional standards. Plus, for more than 30 years the right has used the political strategy of the “liberal media” lie, and because they work so hard to overcome that lie, copy is skewed to the right. Plus, their chain of command is far from liberal.

You certainly did accuse me of lying. Stop playing dumb. You have enough real instances of that, so you don’t have to play dumb. You said, “So my question would be, what proof does the writer of this blog offer to prove that this is from the Livingston County Republican Party?” That certainly is accusing me of lying? I know he’s part of the county GOP, I live here. Do you have proof he isn’t? The party chair reads this blog, is he denying it?

Using his middle name is a signal to your fellow racists that he is a Muslim. I have seen many of these disgusting, untrue emails floating around. Your claim that Obama is a bad speaker is simply not true, and after eight years of Bush, he and his polices will be a welcome change.

When you count Florida, Gore did when more electoral votes. Yes, he doesn’t share Wright’s views. My grandmother and mother have attended the same church for more than 50 years. It has little to do with who the ministry is at the time. Obama is looking for spiritual guidance, not his political guidance.

So he served on the same board as Professor Ayers. Did Obama appoint Ayers to the board? Did Ayers appoint Obama to the board?

Of course it’s not a “false notion that he's black.” But you and the letter writer want to point it out , as well as the Muslim lie, every time you can because that’s the only thing you have against him. You defended the GOP letter writer, and that was the reason for the original post. The notion he’s not black is just stupid. I am like everyone else, and I don’t read that thing you call a blog.

You’re misrepresenting the Global Poverty Act, but that’s nothing new to your and your ilk. The bill does not impose a tax, does not recommend contributions to the U.N. and does not commit any funding to fighting poverty. The bill simply requires the President to submit his plan to reduce poverty within one year of passage. The goal is to promote policy that reduces the number of people worldwide who live on less than $1 a day by half.

Still you have not proven that Bob Moriset represents the Livingston County Republicans. You've added another little spin by saying the Livingston County Republican Chair reads your blog. Can you prove this as well or are you again going to expect me to prove a negative?

We should trust you because you "know it"? I don't think so. Any decent writer knows that to make an honest assertion you need something to back it up. Your word isn't the back up for your word.

Now you claim to know what the reason was for my original post. Can you also cite your qualifications as a mind reader?

By the way, you've just proven yourself a liar again. You said you didn't read my blog. Yet you tell me how poor it is. You couldn't know if it was good, bad or indifferent unless you read it. Second proof that you've read it is that you mentioned where I live. The ONLY place I have ever said where I live is on my blog.

Since you lied about something so trivial as to whether or not you've read my blog, your credibility is shot. So again, please prove that Bob Moriset is a part of the Livingston County Republicans.

As for the rest of your comments, I think your words speak for themselves. If I count FLorida in the Gore column he did win more electoral votes? That's hilarious. You can't count Florida in the Gore column because he didn't win Florda. He lost every count, recount and re-recount including the recounts that were done by the liberal press following the inauguration of George Bush. Gore didn't even win his home state. He lost. It seems odd though that you'd still be whining about the 2000 election nearly 8 years after the election.

Whether you think his comment or Tom Worley's comment is "racist" is a matter of opinion. (Besides it being pathetic for a white boy to play the race card). Applying that to the Livingston County Republican Party shows your piss poor character.

You show me where Bob Moriset represents the Livingston County Republican Party. You find the documentation. If you can't show that, then sit down and shut your damn mouth.

I live in Livingston County. I stand by my claim he is part of the GOP letter-writing effort. You claim he isn’t. You are more than welcome to prove he is not. The party chair’s wife has commented here, so I will assume - until proven otherwise - he is aware of the blog. Plus, there are a lot of comments posted anonymously. He could be you for all I know.

Again, I could care less what you think. Additionally, what would you know about writing? Your original post? I have no idea what you are talking about. I have seen comments from you, but no original post.

I don’t read your blog. I tried to read it a while back. Some poorly written and reasoned piece about ownership society. It made no sense, so I gave up after a few graphs. Do you really think if you give me your name that I can’t find out where you live? If your name is Brett Young then you live in Olivet. You prove that Bob Moriset is not a part of the Livingston County Republicans. You are th only one disputing that.

Sorry, Gore won in Florida. He lost in the Supreme Court. There is no such thing as the “liberal press.” I’m not whining about anything, I’m simply starting a fact. In the end, events have shown it was the U.S. that really lost in 2000.

"""You prove that Bob Moriset is not a part of the Livingston County Republicans. You are th only one disputing that."""

No he's not, and I've been in the county longer than you have. Where can you prove that he is or was on the executive committee or a precinct delegate or a paid member of the Livingston GOP? He may be voting republican, but that's a big difference than the weasel games and yellow journalism you are throwing out at the LCGOP.

Then you’re wrong. Nice try at distancing your party from this racist tirade, but it will not work. I never said he was “on the executive committee or a precinct delegate or a paid member of the Livingston GOP.” I said he was part of the Livingston County GOP letter-writing campaign. I stand by that. “Yellow Journalism?” Are you joking. First, I am no longer a journalist, and how can the truth be yellow?

As for the ridclious libel accusation, there is no libel and you know it. For someone who is claims to be a lawyer or studying to be a lawyer, you don’t know much about libel law. The best defense against libel is the truth.

You claimed that Bob Moriset was part of the Livingston County Republicans letter writing campaign. I've asked you twice for a source. You've not done so.

In your response to my call for a source of Moriset being part of the letter writing campaign, you said that the Chair of the Republican Party in Livingston County reads your blog. I asked you for some sourcing on this along with the source for Moriset being part of Republican letter writing campaign.

In your latest response, you didn't source Moriset's affiliation and you gave no response for a source on the chair, but now you've added yet another by saying that the Chairs wife has commented on here. So now, you have given three pieces of information.

1. Bob Moriset is part of a Republican committee letter writing campaign.

2. The Chair of the Republican committee has read your blog.

3. The chairs wife has commented on your blog.

You could very well be right (although I'd be amazed), but you have yet to back up any of your assertions. They are your statements. All I asked for was a source to back up your statements.

All of your posts and those that have responded on your blog are here. Tell me which one is the chair's wife.

If you're going to tell a lie, you could put an end to it by just typing in the lady's name and typing a post from her here. There is no way to verify that it's her or not her.

What this does point out is that you're searching for credibility by dropping names and situations that may or may not be true, if you can consider using the name of a county party chair a name worth dropping.

What it boils down to is that you have no credibility and you're trying to create credibility by adding more and more on without sourcing your original statement, then statements, then a third.

Any reasonable person would know that you can't prove a negative. You introduced the information about Moriset and dropped the names of the County Chair and his wife, but have nothing to substantiate it.

Want to know why I keep coming back here? Because it's fun to watch what you come up with to try to make yourself important. The sad part is I can nearly predict word for word what you're going to say in each response. I could carry on both sides of our back and forth and it would be more intelligent.

Thank you for admitting to your lie. I didn't expect that one. So you did surprise me with one thing by admitting now that you have been to my blog which is different than what you said earlier.

I am well aware of defamation laws, libel and slander. I know you have to be as well in your former profession.

1. Were the accusations published? Yes. 2. Were they defamatory towards the reputation of the target? Yes. "The LCGOP was accused of 'Racist rants' they did not write. This is a verbal version of the Ron Artest attack on the Piston's fan who didn't even throw the cup at him. 3. Was the published information false? Absof'nloutely? 4. Was Kevin at fault? He wrote it.

Now if this was strictly against the writer, that's one thing. By accusing the wrong people, purposely and deliberately, I can even see this possibly getting past an "actual malice" defense, since no reasonable person can believe this to be true.

Guru, You out did even yourself. You make a statement and now you want someone else to prove it is wrong. A typical liberal. Now matter what you say in your feeble mind it is fact. About your Blog header isn't odd that "The Chosen One" gets all the press and McCain shows up in New Hampshire and only 1 reporter is there. (In Manchester last night, there was just one reporter and one photographer waiting for McCain as his plane -- a white, blue and gold Boeing 737-400 emblazoned with his campaign slogan, "Reform, Prosperity, Peace" -- touched down on the Wiggins Airways tarmac).Odd Media controlled by the conservatives.

Moriset is part of the GOP’s letter-writing campaign. I have a source I choose to keep confidential that say that’s the case. He was right in this case and in another case when they played the race card. I knew there will be denials like we have already seen. I stand by it. There is no way to verify exactly who reads this blog at any one time, and you know it. I was mistaken about Janet Filip commenting on the blog. It was through an email. Here’s a linkhttp://liberalmedianot.blogspot.com/2007/04/open-letter-to-cleary-university-lec.htmlBut again, I also cannot verify who posts anonymously.

I’m not “searching for credibility” because I already have plenty of it. I simply pointed out how the county GOP continues to play the race card. I don’t know if this guy is going off of talking points or what, but he is part of a latter-writing campaign. You keep trying to do all these gymnastics and word games to discredit what I have written, and you can’t do it. We know you disagree, so this is what you do.

I’m not trying to “make myself important.” There are thousands of blogs out ther from people writing about what they care about. I’m no different. I have been a reporter for 13 years before I changed professions, and prior to that being in the military and away from my family for long periods of time I was a prolific letter-write. I enjoy writing, I love politics and I want to change the direction of my country and community; hence my blog.

It would seem to me that if you can “nearly predict word for word what (I’m) going to say in each response” you would be able to come up with an argument to debunk me. You can’t and you haven’t. It would also seem to me of I’m so predictable it would be boring to read.

Again, I never lied. I don’t read your blog. Like I said many times before., I tried once. That does not constitute reading. I’m too busy to waste my time reading substandard writing that makes little sense. It’s exactly what I said earlier and every time. To be honest, if it means that much to you I will give it another go and wade through it and read it. However, I just do not have the time to comment.

An attempt at intimidation to try and keep me from calling your party out on its lies and racism.

1. True.2. The charges of racism is true. Are you denying the letter is not racist? Second, he is part of a letter-writing campaign, here’s some proof from your blog. http://www.livingstonrepublicans.com/6.html

Help with Letters to the Editor: Russ Spencer

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS: WANT TO SEE SOME CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS AND OPINIONS IN YOUR LOCAL PAPER?

The editorial managements of most of the newspapers in the Livingston County area embrace liberal/progressive views. Those views shape the editorial policy, the manner of reporting political issues and the selection for publication of letters to the editor.

An effort is required to provide accurate information to the public and to put forward alternate views on county, state or national issues of the day. Many citizens have made and continue to make letter writing efforts for this purpose but are frequently frustrated by editorial decisions against publication of their letters.

If you wish to participate in a more effective solution to this problem and receive helpful support, information and encouragement please contact Russ Spencer

Thanks,

Russ Spencer

This Spencer guy operates the blog the Suburban Voice, and there are plenty of racists comments on that blog.

3. The information I published is true. At the very least, I believe it to be true when I published, and I believe it still.

4. True.

Sorry, dan, two out of 4 does not get it. It will take more than that to silence me.

The word racism brings out all the haters, even hate America. Is it odd that Sen. Obama gets more coverage? Not at all. If I had the choice between covering a tired old man who is boring at best, and an intelligent, exciting candidate that is inspiring millions all over the world, I know who I would cover. Also, news departments are in business to make money, and to do that it must get people to watch. That’s why Barack Obama is gettign all the coverage.

Yes, the media is controled by conservatives, and the bottom line for them is making money above all else.

Newspapers, at least dallies, are not doing well. That’s no secret. Young people are looking elsewhere for their news, like to the web. This “liberal mind set” crap you keep spouting and “liberal rag” BS is nothing more than right-wing talking points. The fact is the so-called liberal New York Times company owns 19 newspapers, eight TV stations, two radio stations and partial ownership of the Boston Red Sox. That’s the liberal Boston Red Sox.

I don't care if you read my blog or not. I rarely mention it other than putting the site on after my name. You're the one that keeps bringing it up. In fact, I don't think I have mentioned it at all until you put my name and where I live on here. The only place you could get that is from my blog.

If I thought you could learn something from my blog, I'd suggest you read it. Unfortunately, I believe that you're too intolerant of others opinions, and ideas and you just don't want to see past your own needs and wants of trying to control everyone's lives when you obviously can't control your own.

I believe in rugged individualism. In this country every man, woman and child has an opportunity to improve their lives and lifestyles with hard work, ambition and a dream.

The liberal mindset is all about life's lottery. They believe that people are born into their situations and rarely have a chance to change that. Due to that, they insist on taking the opportunity away from children by giving them a poor education. Keep them dumb so they become good little servants of the government.

They try to stifle people by taking their money if they do well and giving it to those that sit around and do nothing. They reward the girls that can't keep their legs together and get pregnant. They reward the lazy that refuse to go out and work but sit at home and watch their 48 inch television while complaining that a 48 inch television screen is not good enough. They do this by taking money from those that do work and giving it to those that want a free ride.

The Declaration of Independence states that we have unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It does not guarantee happiness. It says that you have the Right to PURSUE happiness.

We have the right to Life. Those that are unable to speak for themselves are spoken for by those that try to protect their lives. We have the right to Liberty. Freedom from oppression. Taking our money and redistributing it to the lazy is not liberty. Taking my money and applying it to abortions for those that can't afford it, is taking my beliefs and telling me they mean nothing by using my money for something that I don't believe in.

You should try reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Nowhere in there does it guarantee you a great life, nor does it guarantee you a right to health care, nor the right to have your every want provided for you off the backs of those that are productive in this country.

Your position is anti American and Anti Constitutional. The founding fathers weren't named that because they impregnated everything in a skirt. It means that they put together a great country and set up the best form of government in the world where people have freedoms to pursue happiness. To pursue for themselves what they want provided they don't take the rights of others away in so doing.

You could learn alot by reading the Declaration and the Constitution and you could learn their meanings by perusing the Federalist papers.

Obviously, you do care. My point is why do you continue to argue with me and waste my time? You refuse to even acknowledge an argument, and I’m sick of your personal attacks. Spend the time on your own blog trying to improve it. You are being disingenuous again. Your name is one thing, but you put the address of your blog on the bottom as a way to get more readers. I have no problem listening to other opinions and allowing them to express it, and if that were not the case I would have banned you long ago, or refused to allow anonymous comments. That typically happen on right-wing blogs, and I have been banned from two simply because I made too much sense. If I did that then you would have every right to say I am intolerant of other opinions. I’m not. I don’t know what I could learn from reading your blog. It seems to me you spend more time and more words here than on your own blog. You have not made many, if any, convincing arguments here, so what can I possibly learn from reading it. Are you saying something different there than here?

I believe in “rugged individualism” as well. But a privileged person like George Bush has much more opportunity to succeed than someone born into poverty. I want to see the playing field level.

You are so wrong about the so-called “liberal mind set” it’s almost funny, except there are people who actually believe that false stereotype put out by the right.

Who the hell are you to tell me I am “anti-American and Anti-Constitutional?” Again, because I disagree with you? I got news for you: I am more of a patriot than you will ever be.

We've had a spirited discussion on the Press & Argus site regarding Mr. Moriset's letter to the editor.

Regarding Obama's middle name, Hussein...I've read countless articles, letters, and opinions on Clinton, Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon. From what I have read, a President's middle name is used mostly during the recitation of formal documents, proceedings, etc. Otherwise, they are referred to as President "Last Name", or President "Colloquial Name".

The author of the letter was clearly trying to make a point using Obama's middle name.

He also refers to Obama's African father, completely ignoring his white mother. Again, a point was being made.

Regarding some of the comments. Brett referred to higher taxes as being a negative against Obama. I would like Brett to answer this...since we're funding our occupation of Iraq with monies borrowed from China, pushing our national debt into the stratosphere, how would you pay off the debt? What new service or product can you come up with which would provide a revenue stream capable of paying it off? The higher taxes meme is a non-starter in my opinion. Our current President got us into this mess, now it's up to the adults to clean it up.

Regarding the NYT...the editorial board asked McCain to come up with some new ideas instead of rehashing the same old talking points. McCain was on CBS last week, talking about his plans for the country, Iraq, etc. No one seems to acknowledge that CBS violated their own Standards and Practices by editing his remarks to show he was not ignorant. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/23/cbs-violates-its-own-standards-and-practice-by-altering-online-transcript-of-mccain-interview/

Try again regarding your media bias claim.

Regarding the link...sorry my link-fu is evidently lacking...copy and paste to view the vid.

Welcome to the blog, dargo, and thank you for those intelligent comments. There’s no doubt the point he was trying to make. In the AP style of writing that the P & A use and 98 percent of all newspapers use is to just use the last name after the first reference. But Mr. Moriset was clearly trying to make a point and send a message to his base.